Your argument is that there must be a cause for everything. [/quote]
You need to read BG’s link above. [/quote]
OK. I read it. It has nothing to do with the scope of this thread, which is about RELIGION. People keep confusing asking questions about a religion with asking questions about a philosophical viewpoint where a creator is possible. The two are NOWHERE near the same thing. Many religions agree on existance through a creator, but in quite a few of them, the creator is nothing like the CA proposits. This thread is about logical cause of religion, not logical cause of the universe.
Religion is separate from the CA. Please don’t pretend that defense of the CA is a defense of your religion. If your religion was found to be completely illogical, that would in no way render the CA illogical.[/quote]
Ok. Let me try and get this strait.
The very first sentence in your post was this:
Now, here’s the very first sentence of the very first major point in the article:
When I pointed this simple logical disconnect out, instead of saying, oh, I see what you are saying, you typed “OK. I read it,” then pressed the button on your PWI Random Text Generator and turned it up to 11.
Here’s what you wrote one more time, keep in mind, again, I was focusing upon the single first sentence you wrote:
[quote]
OK. I read it. It has nothing to do with the scope of this thread, which is about RELIGION. People keep confusing asking questions about a religion with asking questions about a philosophical viewpoint where a creator is possible. The two are NOWHERE near the same thing. Many religions agree on existance through a creator, but in quite a few of them, the creator is nothing like the CA proposits. This thread is about logical cause of religion, not logical cause of the universe.
Religion is separate from the CA. [/quote]I really like this part. Huh? ==>[quote]Please don’t pretend that defense of the CA is a defense of your religion. If your religion was found to be completely illogical, that would in no way render the CA illogical.[/quote]
I understand I’m being snarky, but you were really asking for it with this post.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote: abuncha standard vitriol and then this:
<<< I have a message for you; you were not chosen by your God to be his scribe. >>>[/quote]Who might this message be from dare I ask and how did you come to be the messenger? ;D
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote: abuncha standard vitriol and then this:
<<< I have a message for you; you were not chosen by your God to be his scribe. >>>[/quote]Who might this message be from dare I ask and how did you come to be the messenger? ;D
[/quote]
I understand I’m being snarky, but you were really asking for it with this post. [/quote]
Cortes:
With all due respect and honestly not wanting to damage our personal progress, PWI is too full of this kind of nit picking intellectual dishonesty such that it renders the forum very unattractive. PWI amounts to the sweet song of the sirens, luring the unsuspecting ultimately to the rocks and the ship’s demise. On the surface, there appears to be a chance to discuss meaty topics in an intelligent manner. And then you get hit with the PWI shuffle. LOL. I’m not saying you’re a perpetrator of poor conduct here…and I’m no angel. But this sort of thing pervades this place and it’s clutter.
I’m just saying, I know you understand that the poster’s point was the CA does not defend or otherwise substantiate any single religion, or religion at all and it doesn’t claim to. And the OP was about religion, not whether “God” exists. And however inelegant you think the poster expressed it, it was fairly clear that’s what they were saying. There is too much of this nitpicking in these forums and it gets in the way of good dialogue and fair debate. Endless pages are wasted on clarifying nit picked points, when the original point was understood in the first place. And it’s really just an attempt to be clever, not necessarily clearer. In this case, the point was clear, even if it was expressed awkwardly.
Now, your first criticism is entirely fair. And in that respect, I’d suggest the poster go back and revisit the link.
I understand I’m being snarky, but you were really asking for it with this post. [/quote]
Cortes:
With all due respect and honestly not wanting to damage our personal progress, PWI is too full of this kind of nit picking intellectual dishonesty such that it renders the forum very unattractive. PWI amounts to the sweet song of the sirens, luring the unsuspecting ultimately to the rocks and the ship’s demise. On the surface, there appears to be a chance to discuss meaty topics in an intelligent manner. And then you get hit with the PWI shuffle. LOL. I’m not saying you’re a perpetrator of poor conduct here…and I’m no angel. But this sort of thing pervades this place and it’s clutter.
I’m just saying, I know you understand that the poster’s point was the CA does not defend or otherwise substantiate any single religion, or religion at all and it doesn’t claim to. And the OP was about religion, not whether “God” exists. And however inelegant you think the poster expressed it, it was fairly clear that’s what they were saying. There is too much of this nitpicking in these forums and it gets in the way of good dialogue and fair debate. Endless pages are wasted on clarifying nit picked points, when the original point was understood in the first place. And it’s really just an attempt to be clever, not necessarily clearer. In this case, the point was clear, even if it was expressed awkwardly.
Now, your first criticism is entirely fair. And in that respect, I’d suggest the poster go back and revisit the link. [/quote]
No, you’re absolutely correct. I should have left it alone.
And thanks. I do tend to get sucked in and at times I rather too much enjoy the sound of my own words. It should be telling that my favorite poster on PWI is an atheist non-native speaker of English whose typical posts are more suited to twitter than T-Nation. Whom I have never once witnessed engaging in such behavior.
I appreciate the reality check, BG, and to ironcross, I apologize, sincerely.
[quote]
My take on a ritual is it is an activity which has been reinforced through positive associations ie bodily pleasure (relaxation), bonding (sexual/food/celebration rituals), health benefits (such as drugs taken for spiritual experiences that actually kill and rid the body of worms and food preparations), and so on. The interaction of these practices make it more likely that a particular population will survive in a particular place and time.[/quote]
these experience are subjectively perceived as spiritual experiences. Your post make it sound like this aspect was unimportant and secondary.
It’s not.
i won’t pretend i have a definitive answer, but i think it has something to do with ex-stasis (etymologically = to be “out of his own mind”). To be, for a short time, more and less than a “I”.
which may very well be as vital as being able to dream.
[quote]
Also, the above doesn’t prevent one from understanding the person behind the rituals. The oppposite is true. If you can imagine the benefits of doing something, you are far less likely to consider a person ridiculous for doing it.[/quote]
there is basically two valid metholodology in human sciences.
the first is phenomenology :
you try to understand things one at a time, and from the inside. See the “immersive” methods of ethnology for example.
This methodology imply that you first have to empathically listen to the people you study, in order to understand their subjective reality.
About religion, see the works of Rudolf Otto or Ernesto de Martino, Vittorio Lanternari
the other is structuralism.
You try to understand how diverse phenomena interact mutually and to draw a working model for society, or an aspect of it.
you will have to synchronically compare and link objective datas, and completely disregard their subjective aspect.
This prevent you from forming any positive or negative judgement. Judgements about rationality and irrationality included.
About religion, see the works of Claude Levi Strauss or Mircea Eliade.
both methods are valid, but they should not be mixed and confused.
Cortes- I was under the impression that the entire reason CA wqs being brought up in this thread was to prove that religion itself was more logical than the other ideas mentioned. My first comment on it wasn’t true. In my last ones, I was trying to bring it back to the original thread topics. Thanks for the apology. No problem.
Kamui- interesting. It’s possible to use both methods. The first makes for a much more interesting read, the second offers a wider perspective. I wouldn’t discount either or say that using the first makes it impossible to understand the second or vice versa.
In you first reply post it sounded like you were saying that religion provides an experience, which much has been written on, where the participant experiences an altered state of consciousness. I remember reading an article on the hormones involved with “being in love” which showed that the body responds to them like drugs, which is why we somewhat fall out of it around 1-2 years when our body gets used to the chemicals. It ended by saying that humans are always seeking an altered state of consciousness and this was so powerful tha tit allowed people to ignore warning signs in the relationship.
I’m pretty sure my posts up to this point have mislead you concerning how I have read and talked to people about religion and experienced it myself. I think my post interesting experience was going to a Buddhist meeting after deciding that Judeo-christian religions were illogical. Beforehand, I’d spent 14 years as the most enthusiastic Christian that could be found, so I was familiar with how “Gos changed lives”. Well, at this Buddhist meeting, numerous people were getting up and telling stories abouthow much their life had sucked before they became Buddhist and how everything just fell into place after they converted, because they were on the right path. Exactly, word-for-word like all of the Christians talking about God, except replace “found Jesus” with “became buddhist”.
[quote]groo wrote:
If there is a cause for everything then what caused the first cause (god).[/quote]
It’s called an uncaused cause because on that which is brought into existence needs a cause. God being eternal was never brought into existence so he does not need a cause.
This isn’t possible, 1) 2nd law of thermodynamics, 2) the universe shows that a personal and not a blind force created it.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. Point 1 would perhaps apply to THIS Universe, if this universe is in fact ever proven to be a closed system. As discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, there may be multiple universes, or universes popping from previous ones, and so forth. The case for an eternal cosmos is growing.
Number 2, please provide the scientific reference that concludes the universe was created by a personal force. [/quote]
Actually the case for an eternal cosmos is on the retreat…There’s a tiny problem that there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for it. It’s only possible in concept.
You’re still missing the point by a mile as to why this doesn’t matter. [/quote]
goodness you’re fucking arrogant. There’s a tiny problem that ther eis not a single solitary shred of evidence for the CA. It’s only possible as a logical exercise. So, you’re still missing the criticism of the CA, or being obtuse, “by a mile”.
i’m not missing the point. i’m not playing your game.
[/quote]
Technically speaking, anything that exists is “evidence” of causation. Your “criticisms” are just flat errors, your floating them out their like some brilliant revelation you just thought of and nobody else has. Their not, they are just errors of thought and logic and were called so many hundreds of years ago. An eternal universe scenario doesn’t solve the problem. It’s just another premise. If pointing this out makes me arrogant, so be it.
It’s not a game nor is it mine. But go ahead an play your own ‘game’, doesn’t mean shit to me.
Do your own research. As it pertains to cosmology, it doesn’t matter if the universe is eternal or not. However, current theries of the universe have it expiring all it’s energy and laying dormant for eternity after that. It’s based on entropy and finite potential energy. Like I said, whether or not it’s eternally reciprocating or not makes no difference in the cosmological form.
The atom thing just was a rebuttal to your statement that atomic decay happens for no reason, that’s simply not true even Yahoo answers knows that.
LOL! No you don’t if you did you’d still be trying to figure out why the universe being eternal makes no difference what so ever. I have already told you why, but it eluded you. You are so caught up in protecting your precious ego that you are missing very simple basic points that totally invalidate your “criticism”.
You’re doing a damn good job at showing your lack of understanding here. It’s not a scientific argument. Science deals with probabilities and correlation. This is deductive and absolute. It deals primarily in metaphysics, though the physical can be included.
You weren’t around when I first “trotted” out the cosmological argument. And you haven’t identified any problems with it, not the first. You think you have, but you haven’t found the first issue. You trumpeting your own errant thoughts off of mountain tops only to be flat fucking wrong. But you’re wrong with style, but style doesn’t mean shit. There are a couple of weakness there, but you haven’t even come close to identifying them. I sure as hell don’t feel compelled to help you.
So far you’ve only stated that the “universe is eternal” which I have already pointed out that even if true, it doesn’t solve the issues of contingency or dependence. So seriously, where do you see the problem?
You know, when I find a thread boring I just don’t participate. I don’t see a gun to your head, if your bored, I’d suggest you do something interesting.
That’s all I have time for. College football is on.
[quote]pat wrote:
Incorrect. You committing a fundamental misunderstanding. Your logic is:If A can B, and C share a property with A then likewise it can ‘B’.[/quote]
Yes, yes it is. That is the flaw of your argument. You are arbitrarily stating that it cannot be so.
[/quote]
There is nothing arbitrary about it. Because an uncaused-cause exists, does not mean that anything else can exist uncaused, or with out sufficient reason. The reason is that anything that has existence and is uncaused has to sit outside the causal chain. But by definition there can only one of these, not multiples. The Cosmological argument doesn’t tell us about the Necessary Being, it only tells us that it has to exist.
[quote]
You cannot posit something without explaining why or how, or providing a way of finding how/why out. You are saying there must be a God due to your argument without providing a way to validate your assertion except by way of your thought experiment with conveniently placed rules that have no logical basis for existing.
Why can only a single thing be uncaused? [/quote] The nature of regression ends up in a singular ‘thing’, multiples would not solve the problem, or equation if you want to look at it that way. [quote] Why does it have to be God? [/quote] Technically the cosmological form does not actually say that. That is an inference and really it’s a deductive error. The concept of God, shares a few things with the Necessary Being, it’s eternal in every possible way, it sits outside the causal chain and is not affected by anything. Further to be which all ‘things’ ultimately have their root are all things attributed to an all powerful God. Since their can only be one of them, it makes sense that they are one in the same. However, the actual argument does not say that. Because you have to have a concept of God to make the inference, it can only every be an inference. So to be clear, you can deduce an Uncaused-cause, a Necessary Being, but you can deduce that this is the same God as the God of Abraham, Issac, and Moses. It’s a strong inference, but that’s all it can be. [quote] Why can it not be the universe?[/quote] Because the universe would have to be based, rooted, or dependent on nothing. To say it just is, or is based upon itself is circular, and therefore logically impossible. You cannot base a logical argument on an error, circular reasoning is errant.[quote]
It’s not my best trait, but I lose patience very quickly and tend to act like a tool to anyone I associate with the person I lost patience with. So yes, I tend to act like a tool, but trust me when I say I harbor no ill-will towards you.[/quote]
[quote]groo wrote:
If there is a cause for everything then what caused the first cause (god).[/quote]
It’s called an uncaused cause because on that which is brought into existence needs a cause. God being eternal was never brought into existence so he does not need a cause.
This isn’t possible, 1) 2nd law of thermodynamics, 2) the universe shows that a personal and not a blind force created it.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. Point 1 would perhaps apply to THIS Universe, if this universe is in fact ever proven to be a closed system. As discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, there may be multiple universes, or universes popping from previous ones, and so forth. The case for an eternal cosmos is growing.
Number 2, please provide the scientific reference that concludes the universe was created by a personal force. [/quote]
Actually the case for an eternal cosmos is on the retreat…There’s a tiny problem that there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for it. It’s only possible in concept.
You’re still missing the point by a mile as to why this doesn’t matter. [/quote]
goodness you’re fucking arrogant. There’s a tiny problem that ther eis not a single solitary shred of evidence for the CA. It’s only possible as a logical exercise. So, you’re still missing the criticism of the CA, or being obtuse, “by a mile”.
i’m not missing the point. i’m not playing your game.
[/quote]
Technically speaking, anything that exists is “evidence” of causation. Your “criticisms” are just flat errors, your floating them out their like some brilliant revelation you just thought of and nobody else has. Their not, they are just errors of thought and logic and were called so many hundreds of years ago. An eternal universe scenario doesn’t solve the problem. It’s just another premise. If pointing this out makes me arrogant, so be it.
It’s not a game nor is it mine. But go ahead an play your own ‘game’, doesn’t mean shit to me.
Do your own research. As it pertains to cosmology, it doesn’t matter if the universe is eternal or not. However, current theries of the universe have it expiring all it’s energy and laying dormant for eternity after that. It’s based on entropy and finite potential energy. Like I said, whether or not it’s eternally reciprocating or not makes no difference in the cosmological form.
The atom thing just was a rebuttal to your statement that atomic decay happens for no reason, that’s simply not true even Yahoo answers knows that.
LOL! No you don’t if you did you’d still be trying to figure out why the universe being eternal makes no difference what so ever. I have already told you why, but it eluded you. You are so caught up in protecting your precious ego that you are missing very simple basic points that totally invalidate your “criticism”.
You’re doing a damn good job at showing your lack of understanding here. It’s not a scientific argument. Science deals with probabilities and correlation. This is deductive and absolute. It deals primarily in metaphysics, though the physical can be included.
You weren’t around when I first “trotted” out the cosmological argument. And you haven’t identified any problems with it, not the first. You think you have, but you haven’t found the first issue. You trumpeting your own errant thoughts off of mountain tops only to be flat fucking wrong. But you’re wrong with style, but style doesn’t mean shit. There are a couple of weakness there, but you haven’t even come close to identifying them. I sure as hell don’t feel compelled to help you.
So far you’ve only stated that the “universe is eternal” which I have already pointed out that even if true, it doesn’t solve the issues of contingency or dependence. So seriously, where do you see the problem?
You know, when I find a thread boring I just don’t participate. I don’t see a gun to your head, if your bored, I’d suggest you do something interesting.
That’s all I have time for. College football is on.
[/quote]
Did not read but the first few lines. We should be past this now. Yay!
[quote]groo wrote:
groo wrote:
If there is a cause for everything then what caused the first cause (god
This I didn’t write I quoted a page that I felt gave a simple breakdown of the cosmological argument and its various critiques in a timeline fashion. The more sophisticated objections are farther along in the timeline of course and some of them have a lot of fun symbolic logic or math.
If I was trying to work on refuting it I would focus on that what we know about causes comes from us being in the universe and simply because everything in the universe has a cause this doesn’t mean the universe necessarily has one. I don’t think its particularly important to refute though since the cosmological argument as its iterated in the present says absolutely nothing about religion.[/quote]
You need to read BG’s link above.
[/quote]
I’d recommend it because it IS a more elegant defense of the CA than anything that’s been posted here. And it left me wondering if Pat has been inelegant in his defense of the CA or, if he’s purposefully been laying traps to say, “gotcha” - which, in my opinion is intellectually dishonest and really does nothing but fill pages upon pages with circular rhetoric.
Part of the problem with even discussing the CA is that you need to speak the same “language” because of the elegance of the construct (rooted in philosophical discipline, requiring that you debate it on those terms). It’s a philosophical construct, and as such you cannot attack it with science.
But I think Pat is smart enough to know (if he has done his homework as I suspect and if he removes all religious bias) that it still leads to a stalemate. However, no one (yet) has yet been up to the task to debate in the philosophical nomenclature and has thusly (like myself) been falling into the usual obstacles.
Falling into these philosophical sandpits does not mean your ultimate intuition about the CA is wrong (if you are indeed endowed with the ability to understand the argument, counterarguments, where it goes, and moreover where it does NOT go), it just means you’re not engaging from a position of equality (arguing within the philosophical discipline).
Pat would have you believe the CA to be “airtight” (it is not). But it is airtight from the perspective we have been trying to debate it. Pat has done enough homework to say “gotcha”. But it does not make for a very interesting discussion if that was his goal.
If you want to debate the CA with Pat (as I stated, I have no real desire…I know the end game and it doesn’t interest me), I suggest you start with my link and do some homework from there. The link is obviously supportive of the CA, but does acknowledge there is legitimate criticism, and at the same time nicely outlines the error some of us have been making in our resistance to its premise and conclusion. As I said, it’s an elegant defense of the CA, but moreover is an elegant explanation too and a good starting point for further study if it interests you.
If you’re going to debate it correctly, you’re going to have to engage him within the philosophical discipline, something which I have not seen someone do yet (and he very well knows this). All the science in the world (thus far) will not shake it.
And for the record, since the CA leads to no particular religion or God (or even Gods plural), and I’ve stated numerous times I’m not an atheist, I’m not heavily invested enough in the conclusion either way to care.
[/quote]
The idea that quantum events are uncaused or random really just becomes an issue in how terminology is handled. Science simply has a looser definition of ‘nothingness’ than philosophy. While, in science voids and vacuums and vast separations of space and time can count as ‘nothing’ in philosophy the definition is very rigid and is a complete absence. So for example, Null Theory gets its name because presumably these subatomic particles pop in and out of existence in a vacuum. To a quantum physicist, this is random, something from nothing kind of stuff. BUT in philosophy, it’s not. At the very least there is at minumum 3 things in existence, a vacuum, space and time. So it may be something from very little, but it’s NOT something from nothing. Then if you want to toss in metaphysics, you got partical laws, charges, polarities, etc. So suddenly this ‘space’ becomes very crowded.
Some famous quantum physicist said ( I forgot who) that if you could understand everything about the double-slit experiment, you can understand everything about quantum mechanics.
This experiment has been used by atheists and others to show that the cosmological argument is false. The argument is that because an electrons behavior is ‘unpredictable’, that randomness therefore exists and therefore something can come from nothing. This is wrong.
The double slit experiment does put forth some interesting quantum realities, but something from nothing or ‘randomness’ it does not do. It’s actually a reverse “God of gaps” fallacy. People tried to posit because electron behavior is not fully understood, it’s therefore random. No. Not understanding somethings behavior does not make it random, just not understood. Let’s look at the double slit experiment closer. So if you set up the experiment and you have your electron gun and you fire; with what we know today, we have no way of knowing which ‘slit’ it will go through and hence where it will end up on the paper. Based on what we know about particle physicals today, we will never be able to predict which slit the electron will go through, right? With what we have now, nope. Does that mean we will never figure out how to predict this? Maybe, maybe not. BUT there is nothing random or unpredictable about this experiment. As an empirical exercise, you can set up the experiment and never be able to predict where a single electron goes, but there is nothing unpredictable about the experiment. The electron will always go through one of the 2 slits, it will always hit the screen behind the slits, and if you shoot enough electrons you will always have an interference pattern.
I happen to like quantum mechanics as a champion of the cosmological form more so than it’s antithesis. Non-locality as evidenced by the EPR paradox is particularly interesting to me. What’s interesting is that causation is not constrained by space and time. That all that matters is that there is a cause and a resultant effect. Basically, it takes space and time out of it. People don’t really understand causation, myself included, but I think the more bizarre the causal relationship, the more insight we can gain.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Pat, here…I read this (Edward Feser: So you think you understand the cosmological argument?), fully understand it, and finally and fully understand why you think “I don’t get it”. He is infinitely more elegant in his defense of the CA than you (or anyone else here, and I don’t mean that as a dig) and I now understand where you are coming from, and the error of my “approach” to the debate. However, my error is not one of not understanding the ultimate conclusions and pathways of the CA, but one of my failings at the nomenclature of the philosophical disciplines which, to me, at the end of the day and in my opinion amount to linguistic and philosophical masturbation. I understand your (or rather Feser’s) defense of the CA. I still do not accept it without question. And it brings nothing to the table for me personally as I’ve already gone on record as stating I’m not an atheist. That I cannot articulate my objection in your philosophical language is my shortcoming and I’m not interested enough (because like a chessmaster I already see or “grok” the stalemate at the end of this exercise, mo matter what discipline you apply, or nomenclature you use) to continue it’s study to “speak your language”. I’m just really not that interested. I know where it goes and I know where it DOESN’T go. I admit though I’ve been terrible at articulating that.
[/quote]
I have made every single one of those points at one time or another, it’s not my fault if people don’t pay attention.
You keep saying at how uninterested you are in a topic your doing a decent amount of research on. I can assure you I have never put any effort into something I am not interested in, unless I was getting a grade.
so I don’t believe you when you say your bored or not interest. Bored, uninterested people do behave like they give a shit and then say they don’t.
I think you give a shit and you give a big one.
You can tell the threads I don’t give a shit about. I don’t participate.
. No one has given any reason to think that the First Cause is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc. is not a serious objection to the argument.
[/quote]
I can give you a reason. The argument doesn’t make that claim. So to object to the argument based on what it doesn’t say just silly.
I think it’s friggin genius. The older I get, the righter Liebnez gets…Quantum Mechanics so far has not been able to find any empty space, Liebnez is getting righter all time…
[quote]pat wrote:<<< The idea that quantum events are uncaused or random really just becomes an issue in how terminology is handled. Science simply has a looser definition of ‘nothingness’ than philosophy. While, in science voids and vacuums and vast separations of space and time can count as ‘nothing’ in philosophy the definition is very rigid and is a complete absence. So for example, Null Theory gets its name because presumably these subatomic particles pop in and out of existence in a vacuum. To a quantum physicist, this is random, something from nothing kind of stuff. BUT in philosophy, it’s not. At the very least there is at minumum 3 things in existence, a vacuum, space and time. So it may be something from very little, but it’s NOT something from nothing. Then if you want to toss in metaphysics, you got partical laws, charges, polarities, etc. So suddenly this ‘space’ becomes very crowded.
Some famous quantum physicist said ( I forgot who) that if you could understand everything about the double-slit experiment, you can understand everything about quantum mechanics.
This experiment has been used by atheists and others to show that the cosmological argument is false. The argument is that because an electrons behavior is ‘unpredictable’, that randomness therefore exists and therefore something can come from nothing. This is wrong.
The double slit experiment does put forth some interesting quantum realities, but something from nothing or ‘randomness’ it does not do. It’s actually a reverse “God of gaps” fallacy. People tried to posit because electron behavior is not fully understood, it’s therefore random. No. Not understanding somethings behavior does not make it random, just not understood. Let’s look at the double slit experiment closer. So if you set up the experiment and you have your electron gun and you fire; with what we know today, we have no way of knowing which ‘slit’ it will go through and hence where it will end up on the paper. Based on what we know about particle physicals today, we will never be able to predict which slit the electron will go through, right? With what we have now, nope. Does that mean we will never figure out how to predict this? Maybe, maybe not. BUT there is nothing random or unpredictable about this experiment. As an empirical exercise, you can set up the experiment and never be able to predict where a single electron goes, but there is nothing unpredictable about the experiment. The electron will always go through one of the 2 slits, it will always hit the screen behind the slits, and if you shoot enough electrons you will always have an interference pattern.
I happen to like quantum mechanics as a champion of the cosmological form more so than it’s antithesis. Non-locality as evidenced by the EPR paradox is particularly interesting to me. What’s interesting is that causation is not constrained by space and time. That all that matters is that there is a cause and a resultant effect. Basically, it takes space and time out of it. People don’t really understand causation, myself included, but I think the more bizarre the causal relationship, the more insight we can gain. [/quote]Not bad Pat. This was an interesting and enjoyable read. I understand your point about the double slit experiment, but somebody is going to hit you about the idea of never being able to predict the result of an experiment that there’s nothing unpredictable about. I know you probably think I posted this response just to make you chew your own lips off trying to resist talking to me, but I promise you this was a sincere post. It really was an interesting, well writen and enjoyable read.
So, explain why god did this? If we look at other animals’ brains and our brains and see these similarities, why did god create us this way if it wasn’t for evolution?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Pat, here…I read this (Edward Feser: So you think you understand the cosmological argument?), fully understand it, and finally and fully understand why you think “I don’t get it”. He is infinitely more elegant in his defense of the CA than you (or anyone else here, and I don’t mean that as a dig) and I now understand where you are coming from, and the error of my “approach” to the debate. However, my error is not one of not understanding the ultimate conclusions and pathways of the CA, but one of my failings at the nomenclature of the philosophical disciplines which, to me, at the end of the day and in my opinion amount to linguistic and philosophical masturbation. I understand your (or rather Feser’s) defense of the CA. I still do not accept it without question. And it brings nothing to the table for me personally as I’ve already gone on record as stating I’m not an atheist. That I cannot articulate my objection in your philosophical language is my shortcoming and I’m not interested enough (because like a chessmaster I already see or “grok” the stalemate at the end of this exercise, mo matter what discipline you apply, or nomenclature you use) to continue it’s study to “speak your language”. I’m just really not that interested. I know where it goes and I know where it DOESN’T go. I admit though I’ve been terrible at articulating that.
[/quote]
I have made every single one of those points at one time or another, it’s not my fault if people don’t pay attention.
You keep saying at how uninterested you are in a topic your doing a decent amount of research on. I can assure you I have never put any effort into something I am not interested in, unless I was getting a grade.
so I don’t believe you when you say your bored or not interest. Bored, uninterested people do behave like they give a shit and then say they don’t.
I think you give a shit and you give a big one.
You can tell the threads I don’t give a shit about. I don’t participate. [/quote]
Intellectual curiosity. But I’m bored easily. Pat, please don’t try to analyze me and I promise I will not mislead you, as I have not thus far. I don’t care b/c of the ultimate stalemate. It’s philosophical masturbation to me. It does not give me an answer. To be clear, there are two types of information that I thirst for and will hold my attention: knowledge I can use right away (social, economic, wisdom, etc.) and what I’ll call “search for truth” knowledge. There is no ultimate “truth” to the CA. When I say I’m not interested, I’m not interested enough to continue to give it my time, such that I can come back here and debate it on its terms, only to reach the stalemate end that I know is attached to it.
And, in fairness, you may have made those points at one time or another, but not as elegantly as the reference/blog. You were too busy arguing, and too busy saying “gotcha”. Maybe, just maybe, your defense of the CA has not been as elegant as you imagine. I breezed thru the reference and said…“okay”.
I defended you in a thread the other day…said “I think Pat is very bright…”. And the reply was to the effect, “but how bright can he be if I can’t understand anything he says?”
[quote]ephrem wrote:http://i.imgur.com/3iZ0k.png So, explain why god did this? If we look at other animals’ brains and our brains and see these similarities, why did god create us this way if it wasn’t for evolution? >>>[/quote]So that a guy from Holland (who’s name I happen to know isn’t really Ephrem) would, at 5:23 am Detroit time, Sept. 18th 2011 post this picture thinking it was evidence against the God in whose image he was created =] [quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Edit: wrong thread, damn[/quote]Oh… gibberish lol. You wanted it in both threads. Who ya tryin to snow with this?
